BB Supplier that does not increase by inflation + Own Router

armith

The thing is, would the ISPs actually prefer to not be allowed to do this? They must lose a certain number of customers who refuse to sign this type of contract - but they're all forced into it to hit the "best buy" lists - because everyone else is doing the same thing. The only ISPs that are not are the ones who are competing on something other than price (Zen, A&A etc) - and they are made to look oddly expensive because of all this.

I wonder why OFCOM allow it - other regulated services don't seem to allow in-contract inflation-exceeding price rises?

Neil_Jones

CPI is baked into T&Cs.  You agree to it, otherwise no internet comes your way.  You may be able to haggle at (say) 14% below the offer, so when it kicks in you won't be any worse off.

internet providers are like sheep, if one does something they all tend to follow.  Sky have been doing it for years in the TV packaging, which is "up to 10% increase".  Surprised it took them long enough to cotton on.

Think you might be, with all due respect, making heavy weather of this and getting too bogged down in the details.  It's not difficult to avoid or even haggle back down to wipe the rise back out again.

onomatopoeia99

armith said:

Zen, A&A etc)

A&A definitely let you us your own router.  I use pfSense in a VM to talk PPPoE on the WAN side to the old Openreach VDSL modem.  Also no price increases, ever, whether in minimum term or out of it.  I've changed service twice, one of which resulted in a decrease and one an increase, but once on the new service the price has been constant for years.

Don't know what Zen do about price changes but I'm sure they allow your own router as I asked about that when my workplace was considering a new supplier.

.

Neil_Jones

armith said:

The thing is, would the ISPs actually prefer to not be allowed to do this? They must lose a certain number of customers who refuse to sign this type of contract - but they're all forced into it to hit the "best buy" lists - because everyone else is doing the same thing. The only ISPs that are not are the ones who are competing on something other than price (Zen, A&A etc) - and they are made to look oddly expensive because of all this.

I wonder why OFCOM allow it - other regulated services don't seem to allow in-contract inflation-exceeding price rises?

Ofcom don't monitor individual complaints.

The auto increase thing is documented on the website: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complaints/complain-about-phones-or-internet-services/contracts - "Some providers have contracts which set out that the monthly prices you pay will increase at certain times during the contract, for example increasing by inflation each year. This should be made clear to you when you sign the contract so you know what you will have to pay at different points in the contract."

Which implies they see nothing wrong with the practice.

Ofcom and all other government quangos don't actually make any law on anything, they just basically oversee things and ensure providers are making it clear that that's what people are agreeing to (quangos are relatively limited as to what they can actually do).  As I said above, Sky TV have had this clause in their T&Cs for years.

The practice isn't unique to telecoms - regulated rail tickets behave the same way.  The usual argument is "for investment", though considering the railways seem to get worse every year it's an argument that doesn't tend to stand up, but regardless of that,   I'd say it probably requires a change in the law to outlaw the practice,   Which Ofcom can't do.

kroggy

armith said:

The thing is, would the ISPs actually prefer to not be allowed to do this? They must lose a certain number of customers who refuse to sign this type of contract - but they're all forced into it to hit the "best buy" lists - because everyone else is doing the same thing. The only ISPs that are not are the ones who are competing on something other than price (Zen, A&A etc) - and they are made to look oddly expensive because of all this.

I wonder why OFCOM allow it - other regulated services don't seem to allow in-contract inflation-exceeding price rises?

OFCOM allow it because they are "owned" by the corporations they are supposed to be regulating on our behalf, just check out the CV's of the board of OFCOM.

Basically it works like this, every time the regulator is finds abuse and clamps down on it the "industry" come back with a supposed "reasonable request". 

The Broadband Suppliers used to increase prices within contract to screw those who had bought into the offers available on Price Comparison websites, so OFCOM response was to allow any customers to break their contract within 30 days of any increase.  So the "reasonable request" was to call it inflation and bury the cost.

It is totally unreasonable as you should always only pay what is offered and some hidden or unknown number +3% is an unfair contract term,

I think this is the sort of "class action" that organisations like WHICH should seek a judicial review on, it surely is an unfair contract term as it is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act and the Consumer Contract Regulations.

Don't hold your breath though, it is the same for all the OFxxxx so called regulators, the Directors and non_execs are shills who just have a "gig" approach to all the offices they hold, I know because I have held them myself and we compare them at coffee breaks hoping to line up our next one.

All it takes is to write a report that sounds convincing but is mostly hundreds of pages that are too complex to read or understand by mere mortals or MP's 

kroggy

Neil_Jones said:

CPI is baked into T&Cs.  You agree to it, otherwise no internet comes your way.  You may be able to haggle at (say) 14% below the offer, so when it kicks in you won't be any worse off.

internet providers are like sheep, if one does something they all tend to follow.  Sky have been doing it for years in the TV packaging, which is "up to 10% increase".  Surprised it took them long enough to cotton on.

Think you might be, with all due respect, making heavy weather of this and getting too bogged down in the details.  It's not difficult to avoid or even haggle back down to wipe the rise back out again.

Thanks Neil

I had the same thought, I am in the lucky position of being able to rely on neighbours for wifi between contracts but I call out BS when I see it.

I am a Shell Energy Customer and it was the Shell Energy deal that made me consider getting the 67mb service.  So I called Shell BB and as usual on first attempt I got a zombie who would not even pass on my suggestions saying that their management knew exactly what they were doing.  This differed from a very proactive approach I got from a gentleman working for Shell Energy in Eastern Europe.  He said that they had regular visits from senior management in the UK who asked them what concerns and suggestions were being raised by customers.  This actually led to an IT change and the issue I had a concern with has been resolved.

I pointed out to the Shell BB chap that if a customer haggles they have the commission they would have paid the price comparison website to entice me but he was not interested.  He was prepared to match any offer but I could not live with the likely 15% sting.

You say Internet Providers are like Sheep, but as others have said it really looks more like Cartel behaviour that has been in place since the EE acquisition.  When mobile phone companies finally had a platform that could provide competitive Broadband I thought it would be great for competition, but NO, the companies continue to merge or make deals and now we have yet another anti-competitive merger being proposed with 3 mobile and vodafone.

Sky never did it to me, they do not do it on my phone contract, in fact every year I negotiate my phone down to the lowest offer I see on MSE and get a credit.  Sadly so far Shell BB will not budge and I doubt Sky BB will either. 

The reason is clear, BT Wholesale needs to be split off from BT, as does EE Broadband and Plusnet Broadband. maybe merge the latter two and create a stronger competitor. 

Right now BT Wholesale is able to put blanket charges that do not reflect actual investment on all of the BB companies and it it a means for companies to communicate anti-competitive things within the industry.  The old "I can't tell you how to solve this but I heard that Sky are doing X and are fully committed to it".

I remember a guy in Sky Retention team I spoke to on behalf of a family friend, he said the management had pulled all of their ability to make deals on an individual basis, he said there was little point in his team now and that he fully expected it to be palmed off to Indian call centre who just follow scripts.

I think that the heavy weather is real, people have been complaining about these things for years and it is only now that we have a cost of living crisis on food, energy, mortgages and rent that people are being to say YEH WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF, WHY HAS THE REGULATOR ALLOWED THIS.

littleboo

You are a bit confused about Wholesale, that organisation has not existed for a number of years. Do you mean Openreach? If so, their pricing is highly scrutinised and mainly regulated.

iniltous

If a company can ‘guarantee’ no increase during the minimum term , ( and there as some ) then that sort of blows the ‘it’s all a cartel’ argument out of the water….it’s pretty obvious that companies that do guarantee not to raise charges during the minimum term ,  must be making more ‘margin’ at the start of the deal than at the end of it , and if you were to be charitable, you may say they are only overcharging at the start of the minimum term to alleviate the loss they will make at the end , the cynical view is  they are simply making excess margin at the start.
No one has a gun to your head , you decide, chose a company that does or doesn’t state that prices are fixed during the minimum term, you obviously don’t want anything other than a ‘fixed’ price , so use one of them, but don’t complain that the initial cost is more than those ISP that will increase the fee annually, you cannot have your cake and eat it.

No company is immune from inflation, company’s that lose money, don’t stay in business, if the majority of ISP have introduced a price increase formula that’s based on inflation and it’s in the T&C’s , there is no sharp practice, don’t want to be tied by this , use a company that doesn’t state that there will be in term ( annual ) price increase.

With this price structure, the actual cost per month would vary between customers of the same ISP  , if the price increase were in March and someones contract started in April they wouldn’t see an increase for 11 months , but it would be different to someone who signed up in February , their first increase would be in one month,
Only a fool would think that ( for example) a £30/month deal has so much ‘profit’ in it , that absorbing ‘inflation’ doesn’t really affect the ISP and only reduces the profit a bit , broadband is a tiny margin business and there are hundreds of Telcos …the regulator only sets BTw/Openreach prices , costs plus tiny profit, and LLU providers don’t even have to use BT anyway ( Shell and Sky don’t even use BTw )  it’s nonsense to think that there is some sort of cosy deal between fierce competitors  , it’s a cut throat business.

Basically though , you have a choice , don’t want an in term increase , pick an ISP that doesn’t inform their customers of this in the T&C’s, don’t want to use a company that relies on BTw ( or whatever it’s current name is TSO/BT Technology ) there are plenty to chose from.

Your understanding of the way the various parts of BT Group are allowed to interact is fundamentally wrong

kroggy

littleboo said:

You are a bit confused about Wholesale, that organisation has not existed for a number of years. Do you mean Openreach? If so, their pricing is highly scrutinised and mainly regulated.

Whatever they are calling it the issue is the same and clearly not scrutinised enough, the market needs restructuring and the regulator too.  All of the OFxxxxx organisation need to be broken up and a new consumer regulator formed.  None of the current boards should remain.

littleboo

You really need to explain why you believe that everything is broken, calling things a con, a rip-off, a cartel doesn't make it so. Is the market perfect? Undoubtedly not. Is there a case for far reaching breaks ups, forced sell offs? Well, that's your position so you would need to explain better than you have how your new world order will work.